Actual dTon of a Space Viking Nemesis?

[Badenov]

Shrug, I didn’t go total gearhead, just in the ‘looks about right’ for game effect.

My assumption is that the decisions built into CT combat and ships was for specific game effect, and that the ship design rules are effectively a marketplace of game effect tradeoffs. I then went after it to alter some things to my taste without breaking those builds and plug in common ships that still make sense.

One of those is making maneuver matter, with getting closer making beam weapons do more damage, while making a missile run be a thing. Small ships get some upgrades, missile builds include bay weapons, and the damage table is thrown in favor of proportionate tonnage damage and ship/repair drama.

Plus optional power allocation based on 100 second sub turns, so there is player agency in making dramatic decisions.

Missiles aren’t auto hit, using HG to hits for probability, but the damage they do can be altered due to differential vee.

Physics? My table understands suspension of disbelief and genre, so all I have to have is plausible alternate reality that is consistent. Won’t play out hard science but that’s not what I’m going for, more story agency and game.

So as long as your homebrew weapons aren't vastly better than the canonical weapons and breaking the game paradigm, and you didn't break the canonical builds or render them useless/ineffective, I think you're ok.

 

[whartung]

Well, you have a whole warhead's worth of mass, and thrust 13 is so many meters per second, and it's possible to convert to MJ and now you have something the game designer never planned around trumping all the in-game stuff that's really just fiat numbers anyhow,

But see, in TNE at least, they did consider this. And that's a reason why they skipped it completely. It's fraught with problems at the space level, besides taking great care to talk about it at the terrestrial level (i.e. guns vs tanks).

 

[kilemall]

So as long as your homebrew weapons aren't vastly better than the canonical weapons and breaking the game paradigm, and you didn't break the canonical builds or render them useless/ineffective, I think you're ok.

Meson guns still sneak through armor, nukes do big damage and heavy armor if no dampers, only one home brew (railguns, use PA, two surface hits instead of one surface one rad, short range only), etc.

Definitely differences, multi spinals allowed being the big one, and the damages for nukes and spinals can run into thousands of tons, gouging out chunks of big ships and crack smaller ones in two. And yes those annoying small craft can do outsize damage but at horrific cost.

 

[Badenov]

Meson guns still sneak through armor, nukes do big damage and heavy armor if no dampers, only one home brew (railguns, use PA, two surface hits instead of one surface one rad, short range only), etc.

Definitely differences, multi spinals allowed being the big one, and the damages for nukes and spinals can run into thousands of tons, gouging out chunks of big ships and crack smaller ones in two. And yes those annoying small craft can do outsize damage but at horrific cost.

Multi-Spinals: This is one the game I'm in allows also, under limited conditions. No more than 20% of ship's tonnage can be spinal mounts. This puts it squarely in the ballpark of RL spinal mounts, and seems pretty reasonable. Since Bays are limited to 10% (Max 100T per 1000T of ship), Turrets limited to 1% (Max 1T per 100T of ship), 20% seemed reasonable. We don't really do much space combat anymore, though, as it's not really anyone's primary area of interest.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, you could pack a hull, full of spinals.

My contribution was, you can't, because of recoil.

Logic would indicate, if properly integrated into the hull, you could have more, but fired one per round.

But Mongoose wasn't looking for logic, just a plausible excuse.

Given current hull size conventions, I'd say above a megatonne, you can.